Figures released by the Texas secretary of state show that more than 24,000 Texas voters had their ballots rejected in the March primary. The rejection rate is a significant increase over previous elections.
www.texastribune.org
You have to really want to vote though right? Like take time off work and be mobile enough to stand in line in the heat really?
Did you read the article? I didn’t see anything resembling voter suppression. The article pointed out roughly equal number of registered democrats and republicans ballots being rejected, and sited that the main reason they were rejected was for not having a drivers license number or SSN. Sounds like an equally applied rules. Put the proper ID number on your ballot and it sounds like you’ll be good to go
And I’m sorry, I just don’t have any pity for anyone who can’t find a way to vote. Get a mail in ballot if you can’t physically stand in line. Go after or before work and vote. I did it every year when I was a college student, minimum wage worker, in grad school. I always found the time. It’s not that hard.
Don’t worry.
There is nothing at all sociopathic about limiting other peoples’ right to breathe by offing them like a bunch of targets due to easy access to guns you can literally buy at Walmart. But you know, people gotta have the right to own their Guns. It’s their God Given Constitutional, Great slave owning Forefather’s-thought- about-me RIGHT!!!
Nothing sociopathic at all. I mean if a few kids need to die then let them. 😏
Did you read the article? I didn’t see anything resembling voter suppression. The article pointed out roughly equal number of registered democrats and republicans ballots being rejected, and sited that the main reason they were rejected was for not having a drivers license number or SSN. Sounds like an equally applied rules. Put the proper ID number on your ballot and it sounds like you’ll be good to go
And I’m sorry, I just don’t have any pity for anyone who can’t find a way to vote. Get a mail in ballot if you can’t physically stand in line. Go after or before work and vote. I did it every year when I was a college student, minimum wage worker, in grad school. I always found the time. It’s not that hard.
Voter suppression doesnt have to target a political party, just a specific group of people. In this case it is a group of people who clearly have trouble following a set of rigid directions. Do you think this made the election more secure or just weeded out people who werent intelligent enough to follow the directions?
Your own experience voting is not generalizable to everyone. Are you literate? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have agoraphobia? There are plenty of reasons people would still want to vote by mail but have trouble following these directions and their votes were *literally* suppressed in the primary. Compared to the evidence of *literal* voter fraud that has been conjured to date and it is painfully obvious which one is a bigger problem.
Voter suppression is as much as a myth as massive voter fraud is. More people voted in the last election than ever before. Anyone who has a true desire to vote can cast their vote.
Voter suppression doesnt have to target a political party, just a specific group of people. In this case it is a group of people who clearly have trouble following a set of rigid directions. Do you think this made the election more secure or just weeded out people who werent intelligent enough to follow the directions?
Your own experience voting is not generalizable to everyone. Are you literate? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have agoraphobia? There are plenty of reasons people would still want to vote by mail but have trouble following these directions and their votes were *literally* suppressed in the primary. Compared to the evidence of *literal* voter fraud that has been conjured to date and it is painfully obvious which one is a bigger problem.
Maybe we differ here, but if you can’t fill out a simple form then you shouldn’t be in charge of picking our country’s leaders.
Is your ability to drive “suppressed” if you go to get your license or registration from the DMV and haven’t filled out your forms correctly, or failed to bring the right accompanying documents?
Maybe we differ here, but if you can’t fill out a simple form then you shouldn’t be in charge of picking our country’s leaders.
Is your ability to drive “suppressed” if you go to get your license or registration from the DMV and haven’t filled out your forms correctly, or failed to bring the right accompanying documents?
I would have added a confederate flag hat, Trump and American flags on the truck with a blue lives matter license plate, a “Let’s go Brandon” t-shirt, so this was pretty tame.
The state's voter rolls have grown by nearly 2 million since the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, but polling locations have been cut by almost 10%.
www.npr.org
And of course Texas was full of 6 hour lines, mostly in minority neighborhoods as well. It's a plain reality that they suppress the vote, and here's 5 ways they do it.
Just look at the farce of a bill Abbott signed last year:
While SB 1 makes some changes that could expand access — namely increasing early voting hours in smaller, mostly Republican counties — the new law otherwise restricts how and when voters cast ballots. It specifically targets voting initiatives used by diverse, Democratic Harris County, the state’s most populous, by banning overnight early voting hours and drive-thru voting — both of which proved popular among voters of color last year.
The new law also will ratchet up voting-by-mail rules in a state where the option is already significantly limited, give partisan poll watchers increased autonomy inside polling places by granting them free movement, and set new rules — and criminal penalties — for voter assistance. It also makes it a state jail felony for local election officials to proactively distribute applications for mail-in ballots, even if they are providing them to voters who automatically qualify to vote by mail or groups helping get out the vote.
SB 1 makes up Republicans’ third attempt to pass a far-reaching law that restricts how and when voters cast ballots. It takes particular aim at voting initiatives used in diverse, Democratic Harris County in the 2020 election.
The state's voter rolls have grown by nearly 2 million since the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, but polling locations have been cut by almost 10%.
www.npr.org
And of course Texas was full of 6 hour lines, mostly in minority neighborhoods as well. It's a plain reality that they suppress the vote, and here's 5 ways they do it.
Just look at the farce of a bill Abbott signed last year:
While SB 1 makes some changes that could expand access — namely increasing early voting hours in smaller, mostly Republican counties — the new law otherwise restricts how and when voters cast ballots. It specifically targets voting initiatives used by diverse, Democratic Harris County, the state’s most populous, by banning overnight early voting hours and drive-thru voting — both of which proved popular among voters of color last year.
The new law also will ratchet up voting-by-mail rules in a state where the option is already significantly limited, give partisan poll watchers increased autonomy inside polling places by granting them free movement, and set new rules — and criminal penalties — for voter assistance. It also makes it a state jail felony for local election officials to proactively distribute applications for mail-in ballots, even if they are providing them to voters who automatically qualify to vote by mail or groups helping get out the vote.
SB 1 makes up Republicans’ third attempt to pass a far-reaching law that restricts how and when voters cast ballots. It takes particular aim at voting initiatives used in diverse, Democratic Harris County in the 2020 election.
Yep. Posters here though refuse to acknowledge this. They openly accept that it increases security though with absolutely no proof of that though. It is called malignant partisanship and it killed this country.
No, he's not well because he keeps conflating 1/6 with doing away with 2A. He seems to think that tyranny occurred even through systems and distributed power functioned properly and some 2A advocates should have acted. I think he has given his mind to conspiracies and is not seeing clearly.
You must have slept through the last 50 years of world events and do not understand how the US was founded.
@Matty44 “Maybe we differ here, but if you can’t fill out a simple form then you shouldn’t be in charge of picking our country’s leaders.”
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the context but there could be a variety of reasons a person may need help with a form and still be an American citizen and eligible to vote.
No, he's not well because he keeps conflating 1/6 with doing away with 2A. He seems to think that tyranny occurred even through systems and distributed power functioned properly. I think he has given his mind to conspiracies and is not seeing clearly.
You must have slept through the last 50 years of world events and do not understand how the US was founded.
Who me? Get out of my head!
I do have a tendency to fall asleep in class. Always got in trouble in school. No lie there.
Seriously though. 1/6 was bad, bad. Like terrible.
Florida Republicans were barely even hiding the fact that they were passing a voter suppression bill that mainly targeted black, democratic voters. Luckily some of the provisions were struck down in a Florida court.
The judge based his conclusion on a few key facts that came to light during the course of the trial.
First, the Republican sponsors of S.B. 90 failed to articulate a genuine reason why the law was needed. Despite the Republican Party’s alleged focus on preventing voter fraud and restoring confidence in elections, the defendants failed to offer any evidence suggesting that Florida’s past elections were not secure. In fact, legislators admitted that S.B. 90 was not intended to respond to any past fraud. As Walker summarized, “Not only is voter fraud extremely rare in Florida, but SB 90’s proponents could not even explain how SB 90 would reduce voter fraud prophylactically.” Republican legislators offered conflicting statements on their reasoning behind S.B. 90 both during the legislative process and at trial, causing Walker to conclude that S.B. 90’s “exact justification…is difficult to pin down, with sponsors and supporters offering conflicting or nonsensical rationales.” One state senator similarly stated that, as legislators, “the rationale for SB 90 ‘was perhaps the most [elusive] answer we faced.’” Republicans created a nonexistent problem and claimed the solution was S.B. 90.
Second, election supervisors overwhelmingly opposed the restrictive provisions in S.B. 90. The supervisors never suggested that the changes were needed, and many opposed the passage of the bill throughout the legislative process and advocated for less harsh provisions. Even though “the Supervisors did not ask for SB 90, did not want SB 90, and did not like SB 90,” Republican legislators pushed the law through for their own gain. One Republican state senator — who is also the chair of the Florida Republican Party — even texted another Republican legislator that the “real purpose behind” S.B. 90 is “to favor the Republican Party over the Democratic Party.”
Finally, the timing of S.B. 90 raised some red flags. The Legislature had not passed any election-related legislation between 2013 and 2020, even following the 2018 election when then-Gov. Rick Scott (R) and then-President Donald Trump (R) alleged voter fraud was present in Florida. There were only two new developments that could explain Republicans’ push for S.B. 90: Trump refused to concede that he lost the 2020 presidential election, instead choosing to spread misinformation about nonexistent voter fraud, and Black and Democratic Floridians voted by mail in increasing numbers (to be discussed in the next section).
...
Here are some ways that Judge Walker found S.B. 90 affected Black voters.
Drop Boxes
White and Latino voters have historically used mail-in voting at higher rates than Black voters. However, in 2020 Black voters’ use of mail-in voting doubled compared to previous years. In particular, Black voters relied heavily on drop boxes for depositing their completed absentee ballots. Based on evidence presented by experts, Black voters casting a mail-in ballot in the 2020 primary and general elections “had, on average, 48% and 25% greater odds, respectively, of voting via drop box than” white voters casting a mail-in ballot. It is not a huge surprise, then, that S.B. 90 targeted drop boxes in ways that specifically affected Black voters’ ability to use them. S.B. 90 limited drop boxes so that they were only allowed at a county’s permanent voting site or an early voting location and only accessible during early voting hours (between 8-12 hours per day). Since “Black voters disproportionately use drop boxes outside of early voting and outside of typical business hours,” Walker concluded that “SB 90 effectively bans drop-box use at the specific times and the specific days that Black voters, not all Democratic voters, are most likely to use them.”
Line-warming Ban
In Florida, minority voters “are, on average, more likely to wait in long lines to vote.” And, since S.B. 90 placed restrictions on mail-in voting, lines could have gotten even longer in response since more people would have had to turn to in-person voting. However, S.B. 90’s vague line-warming ban made it a crime to engage in “any activity with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter” within 150 feet of a polling location — meaning that organizations that used to provide food and water to those waiting in long lines could no longer safely do so without fear of committing a crime. Because of this, the “Court concludes that the solicitation definition will have a disparate impact on minority voters because minority voters are disproportionately likely to wait in line to vote, and because the provision discourages third parties from helping those waiting to vote.”
3PVROs’ Activity
3PVROs have been instrumental in registering minority voters, so much so that 10% of Black and Latino voters were registered by such an organization, compared to only 2% of white voters. S.B. 90 targeted 3PVROs and their ability to carry out their mission of registering voters, affecting these organizations’ ability to assist minority Floridians in registering to vote. This led Walker to conclude that “the Legislature enacted the registration disclaimer with the intent to discriminate against Black voters—who disproportionately rely on 3PVROs.”
No, he's not well because he keeps conflating 1/6 with doing away with 2A. He seems to think that tyranny occurred even through systems and distributed power functioned properly and some 2A advocates should have acted. I think he has given his mind to conspiracies and is not seeing clearly.
You must have slept through the last 50 years of world events and do not understand how the US was founded.
You may have misunderstood--from the pro 2A 'protects against tyranny' crowd, why didn't the mass of 1/6 protestors use their guns to stop tyranny on that day? I thought that was the whole damn point of the amendment, to use your guns to protect the Constitution from an oppressive government. I don't think tyranny was happening but they did (and still do), so why wasn't this fundamental right that we need so desperately to protect ourselves from this exact scenario nowhere to be seen on that day? Or maybe the entire idea that we are so divided that one man's insurrectionist is another man's patriot is a huge part of the problem and giving everyone guns in that situation is not going to make things more secure or help the situation at all.
You may have misunderstood--from the pro 2A 'protects against tyranny' crowd, why didn't the mass of 1/6 protestors use their guns to stop tyranny on that day? I thought that was the whole damn point of the amendment, to use your guns to protect the Constitution from an oppressive government. I don't think tyranny was happening but they did (and still do), so why wasn't this fundamental right that we need so desperately to protect ourselves from this exact scenario nowhere to be seen on that day? Or maybe the entire idea that we are so divided that one man's insurrectionist is another man's patriot is a huge part of the problem and giving everyone guns in that situation is not going to make things more secure or help the situation at all.
I've seen most of the footage available, as I'm sure you have, and seen the interviews of those who attended. My impression was that most were there to protest an election result that they did not agree with, which is why they were not armed. Within that group many were violent and destructive, and many were not. Mostly they seemed like political zealots who erroneously thought their side should have won.
I think for most people, the person who is in office doesn't define a tyranny, it's what they do with it. It is much harder to oppress a population that is armed than a population that is unarmed. So why give up the best tool to defend yourself?
I've seen most of the footage available, as I'm sure you have, and seen the interviews of those who attended. My impression was that most were there to protest an election result that they did not agree with, which is why they were not armed. Within that group many were violent and destructive, and many were not. Mostly they seemed like political zealots who erroneously thought their side should have won.
I think for most people, the person who is in office doesn't define a tyranny, it's what they do with it. It is much harder to oppress a population that is armed than a population that is unarmed. So why give up the best tool to defend yourself?
So if in 2024 Desantis loses to Biden but there is clear evidence the Democrats manipulated the vote in WI, MI, and AZ to swing the election in their favor but the courts say it is up to the states and steps back from it, and Desantis is certain and you are certain, how is this not the EXACT scenario where you should get your guns out and start killing the democratic leadership who have stolen the presidency from you and your fellow citizens? When do we use guns to start defending ourselves from treason if not this scenario? Like what is an example that is more clear cut than this for defense against tyranny than to defend the president elect from having his position taken from him? Or maybe there is no scenario where we would be using our guns and the entire argument that they defend against tyranny is nonsense.
That scenario is EXACTLY what many there thought happened. It is what over half the Republican party thinks happened. Where is this defense of the Republic from these 2A advocates? Or does election fraud and theft of the executive position not constitute enough of a crime to warrant that response?
Maybe we differ here, but if you can’t fill out a simple form then you shouldn’t be in charge of picking our country’s leaders.
Is your ability to drive “suppressed” if you go to get your license or registration from the DMV and haven’t filled out your forms correctly, or failed to bring the right accompanying documents?
Driving is not constitutionally guaranteed. The right to vote is embedded in the constitution. You don’t need to be able to read or write in order to vote. Blind people can’t drive but they still have a right to vote. So do non-English speakers.
No. Lots of homeless white native born meth addicts in my area. They don’t have an address or drivers licenses or social security cards. They still have a right to vote. The constitution doesn’t say you need to show a drivers license or a social security card or “prove” that you’re a citizen in order to vote. You made that up.
So if in 2024 Desantis loses to Biden but there is clear evidence the Democrats manipulated the vote in WI, MI, and AZ to swing the election in their favor but the courts say it is up to the states and steps back from it, and Desantis is certain and you are certain, how is this not the EXACT scenario where you should get your guns out and start killing the democratic leadership who have stolen the presidency from you and your fellow citizens? When do we use guns to start defending ourselves from treason if not this scenario? Like what is an example that is more clear cut than this for defense against tyranny than to defend the president elect from having his position taken from him? Or maybe there is no scenario where we would be using our guns and the entire argument that they defend against tyranny is nonsense.
That scenario is EXACTLY what many there thought happened. It is what over half the Republican party thinks happened. Where is this defense of the Republic from these 2A advocates? Or does election fraud and theft of the executive position not constitute enough of a crime to warrant that response?
The election result protesters on 1/6 knew they were outgunned by the tyrannical federal government. If only they had tanks, artillery, and nukes, 1/6 would have had a different outcome.
The election result protesters on 1/6 knew they were outgunned by the tyrannical federal government. If only they had tanks, artillery, and nukes, 1/6 would have had a different outcome.
Thousands protesting Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election took to the streets for a third night of demonstrations and vigils in several US cities.
Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney said the panel will use coming hearings to lay out the alleged seven-part plan by the former president to overturn his 2020 election defeat.
1/6 was just amazing on so many levels. The effort by people and a president to subvert the constitution, from the party who claims to be THE defenders of the constitution. The involvement of a national media organization and members of it texting those closest to the president telling him to stop. The involvement of the wife of a SCOTUS judge. An act of tyranny from the party of people claiming to be defenders of tyranny. And now, that party claiming it was a dream - like it never happened and even if it did it was no biggie. Gaslighting at the highest levels.
I think the best writers would have trouble making up that story. Life is sometimes stranger than fiction.
So if in 2024 Desantis loses to Biden but there is clear evidence the Democrats manipulated the vote in WI, MI, and AZ to swing the election in their favor but the courts say it is up to the states and steps back from it, and Desantis is certain and you are certain, how is this not the EXACT scenario where you should get your guns out and start killing the democratic leadership who have stolen the presidency from you and your fellow citizens? When do we use guns to start defending ourselves from treason if not this scenario? Like what is an example that is more clear cut than this for defense against tyranny than to defend the president elect from having his position taken from him? Or maybe there is no scenario where we would be using our guns and the entire argument that they defend against tyranny is nonsense.
That scenario is EXACTLY what many there thought happened. It is what over half the Republican party thinks happened. Where is this defense of the Republic from these 2A advocates? Or does election fraud and theft of the executive position not constitute enough of a crime to warrant that response?
Distribution of power and legal procedures were effective. There were other branches of government, with opposing interests, to investigate their concerns. 1/6 ended up being a lot like a riot in response to an election result some people couldn’t/wouldn’t accept. I find that if peoples actions don’t align with what they’re saying, then believe their actions. No one shot guns on 1/6 because it was an act of disobedience with many taking it too far by rioting. you're using a lot of terms like "treason" and "tyranny", playing both sides of the isle to put together some kind of argument, but none of occurred.
The Olympics have watered down their shooting events so much (just airguns and some 22s and skeet at this point) mainly because many participating countries have such draconian laws that people can't use or learn to shoot other firearms.
Most Americans are shooting other disciplines once out of high school and the airgun / smallbore sports they start off in. The main things I do (highpower service rifle, bullseye pistol, service pistol) aren't Olympic sports.
And that's OK. The Olympics are above all a political event that happens to involve some athletes, with all the compromise and corruption that implies. Every four years it descends on some country like a plague of locusts and somehow the promised economic benefits just don't appear. But there's some show of international unity and cooperation for a while and that's nice.
There are more interesting, less corrupt, and less exploitative international shooting competitions than what the Olympics offer. ISSF is the a more relevant administrative body than the Olympics.
When I saw that on TV, it seemed shady that she was holding what appeared to be brand new sneakers with no blood on them. The massacre was dramatic enough. It didn’t need additional theatrics.
No. Lots of homeless white native born meth addicts in my area. They don’t have an address or drivers licenses or social security cards. They still have a right to vote. The constitution doesn’t say you need to show a drivers license or a social security card or “prove” that you’re a citizen in order to vote. You made that up.
Well, you made up that I “made that up” but that’s what strawmen are all about…
I never said anything about the constitution saying you need to show a DL or SSN. I said you need to be a US citizen to vote. I think we can find common ground there at least??? I think you should have to PROVE that you’re a citizen to vote. More common ground??? There are challenges to verifying homeless people’s eligible voting district and identification…but that’s a side issue.
My point is that one should have to prove they are a legal us citizen to vote, and identification of some sort to show that you are indeed a legal and legitimate resident of one’s voting district is important. If you fail to complete your voting paperwork correctly (registration or ballot) and your vote ends up not counting, that’s on you. That’s not voter suppression.
Driving is not constitutionally guaranteed. The right to vote is embedded in the constitution. You don’t need to be able to read or write in order to vote. Blind people can’t drive but they still have a right to vote. So do non-English speakers.
“Put simply—and this is surprising to many people—there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.””
In order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, until recently you had to answer this question: What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens? The correct answer, according to the United States government, was, The...
democracyjournal.org
But I digress, cause this is not the point at all about what I was posting about in regards to voter suppression. Just pointing it out because you get a little smug sometimes
SCOTUS functions at a national, federal level. With SCOTUS being packed by presidents who can't even win the popular vote. The point being that very unpopular decisions or legislation can be handed down by people chosen by minority, which means that Constitutional amendments requiring supermajorites are impossible when even majority opinion doesn't translate nowadays.
Dems wasted 2 yrs to make any legit changes to prevent the problems we will continue to face in the future. Should have made changes to gerrymandering, packed the courts and establish voter protection laws. Kinda too late to be going after Trump now.
“Put simply—and this is surprising to many people—there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.””
In order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, until recently you had to answer this question: What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens? The correct answer, according to the United States government, was, The...
democracyjournal.org
But I digress, cause this is not the point at all about what I was posting about in regards to voter suppression. Just pointing it out because you get a little smug sometimes
I do see your point though that there is nothing in the constitution to prevent states from arbitrarily restricting the voting rights of tall people or short people or anesthesiologists or people with tattoos. The piecemeal amendments are not a good substitute for a comprehensive voting rights amendment.
Dems wasted 2 yrs to make any legit changes to prevent the problems we will continue to face in the future. Should have made changes to gerrymandering, packed the courts and establish voter protection laws. Kinda too late to be going after Trump now.
Honestly the democrats need to take a page out of the republican playbook and go full throttle on passing laws and electing Supreme Court judges when they have the power to do so.
Honestly the democrats need to take a page out of the republican playbook and go full throttle on passing laws and electing Supreme Court judges when they have the power to do so.
Don’t forget limit the president being able to nominate one during his term even if it’s a year or two out from the election cycle, however be able to get one in literally weeks before one surprisingly.
Don’t forget limit the president being able to nominate one during his term even if it’s a year or two out from the election cycle, however be able to get one in literally weeks before one surprisingly.
Yeah, this. The proposed legislation is dumb and everyone knows it. There was almost another school shooting in TX the day after Uvalde. There was a summer camp shooting that was stopped quickly yesterday. I'm not sure why the Democrats haven't figured this out yet, but it became apparent (at least to me) during Trump that the Republicans have no interest whatsoever in politics as a team sport. They have their agenda and they'll shove it down the countries throat (phrasing!) whether we want it or not. The Democrats as far as I can tell are an unorganized group with no mission, no organization, and no willpower.
Everyone knows what it would take to put a dent in school shootings - decrease access to firearms (in particular ARs), enforce a serious wait time between desire to purchase and ability to purchase, decrease magazine capacities, and increase age limits. Everyone knows this. But instead, the Dems play footsie with Republicans and let them throw money at the problem which won't do anything. Literally, nothing.
Everyone knows what it would take to put a dent in school shootings - decrease access to firearms (in particular ARs), enforce a serious wait time between desire to purchase and ability to purchase, decrease magazine capacities, and increase age limits. Everyone knows this. But instead, the Dems play footsie with Republicans and let them throw money at the problem which won't do anything. Literally, nothing.
Do you know that these things would actually help?
People act like if we reduced total number of guns that it would decrease school shootings. Is that really true? If you cut magically the number of guns by 90%, could the maniacs that commit these heinous acts still get a hold of the remaining 10%? If you decrease gun ownership from law abiding citizens, what good does that do? I suppose it might lower accidental kid shootings at home, but wouldn’t necessarily effect school shootings.
Increase wait times, ok, by how much? Does this really help anything? Maybe you stop someone who is enraged and wants to go kill someone or themselves in the heat of the moment, but what are you talking here? 3 days? 7 days? 14 days? How long do these psychos plan these attacks on schools? Would that really matter? Or does it have no impact on them, but it hurts the woman who is afraid of her abusive partner, like this woman…
Decrease magazine capacity. Ok, I’m on board to a degree, but to what arbitrary number? I’ve already stated before, someone can easily bring a backpack full of reloads and it only takes a second or two if you know what you’re doing. What’s an effective number to lower it to? 10? School shooter in a classroom can easily fire 20 shots from two handguns in under a minute. 5? 3? Are you gonna go so low that someone in a self defense scenario just gets one crack at taking out an assailant? What’s the magic number?
Age limit? Again, what’s the magic number? And is it age limits on all guns our just the vaguely described “assault rifles?” Cause if it’s not handguns, a potential school shooter can still buy 3 or 4 handguns and a bunch of 10 rd magazines and do a bunch of damage. And if it’s all guns, you’re now preventing the 20 yr old female sophomore who lives by herself in her apartment from having a right to self protection. Also, how many of these school shooters have gotten guns from family members?
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything, but we can’t just say everyone knows what to do, duh, it’s so obvious, just do it. You have to have solid logic for what your prescribing. Instead it’s just, “guns are evil, so we need common sense” reforms. And that’s where the thought process ends.
And more so, when the prevailing thought on the left is that it’s SO OBVIOUS what needs to be done, when anyone questions why would we should impose a certain restriction, they are met with scorn and told they don’t care about dead kids cause in the anti-gun crowds minds, there’s no question about what needs to be done. It’s short sighted, simplistic thinking that sows division, when if approached with a different mindset, perhaps some common ground could be achieved.
You missed my point. The Constitution is either relevant or irrelevant. You either respect it in its entirety or it’s irrelevant. The Capitol being stormed was the final touch on a months long attempt to subvert the document that you claim gives you the right to being armed.
I feel like it’s not just angry, unstable, or mentally ill people who are capable of violence. We, as a nation, are overlooking irresponsible people, people with poor judgment and poor insight, and people that just make poor decisions.
This. no consequences, lots of excuses. put the cigarette out for good - put the donut and cheese fries down and go for a walk....
'merica is overdue for some tough love.
Do you know that these things would actually help?
People act like if we reduced total number of guns that it would decrease school shootings. Is that really true? If you cut magically the number of guns by 90%, could the maniacs that commit these heinous acts still get a hold of the remaining 10%? If you decrease gun ownership from law abiding citizens, what good does that do? I suppose it might lower accidental kid shootings at home, but wouldn’t necessarily effect school shootings.
Increase wait times, ok, by how much? Does this really help anything? Maybe you stop someone who is enraged and wants to go kill someone or themselves in the heat of the moment, but what are you talking here? 3 days? 7 days? 14 days? How long do these psychos plan these attacks on schools? Would that really matter? Or does it have no impact on them, but it hurts the woman who is afraid of her abusive partner, like this woman…
Decrease magazine capacity. Ok, I’m on board to a degree, but to what arbitrary number? I’ve already stated before, someone can easily bring a backpack full of reloads and it only takes a second or two if you know what you’re doing. What’s an effective number to lower it to? 10? School shooter in a classroom can easily fire 20 shots from two handguns in under a minute. 5? 3? Are you gonna go so low that someone in a self defense scenario just gets one crack at taking out an assailant? What’s the magic number?
Age limit? Again, what’s the magic number? And is it age limits on all guns our just the vaguely described “assault rifles?” Cause if it’s not handguns, a potential school shooter can still buy 3 or 4 handguns and a bunch of 10 rd magazines and do a bunch of damage. And if it’s all guns, you’re now preventing the 20 yr old female sophomore who lives by herself in her apartment from having a right to self protection. Also, how many of these school shooters have gotten guns from family members?
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything, but we can’t just say everyone knows what to do, duh, it’s so obvious, just do it. You have to have solid logic for what your prescribing. Instead it’s just, “guns are evil, so we need common sense” reforms. And that’s where the thought process ends.
And more so, when the prevailing thought on the left is that it’s SO OBVIOUS what needs to be done, when anyone questions why would we should impose a certain restriction, they are met with scorn and told they don’t care about dead kids cause in the anti-gun crowds minds, there’s no question about what needs to be done. It’s short sighted, simplistic thinking that sows division, when if approached with a different mindset, perhaps some common ground could be achieved.
Do you know that these things would actually help?
People act like if we reduced total number of guns that it would decrease school shootings. Is that really true? If you cut magically the number of guns by 90%, could the maniacs that commit these heinous acts still get a hold of the remaining 10%? If you decrease gun ownership from law abiding citizens, what good does that do? I suppose it might lower accidental kid shootings at home, but wouldn’t necessarily effect school shootings.
Increase wait times, ok, by how much? Does this really help anything? Maybe you stop someone who is enraged and wants to go kill someone or themselves in the heat of the moment, but what are you talking here? 3 days? 7 days? 14 days? How long do these psychos plan these attacks on schools? Would that really matter? Or does it have no impact on them, but it hurts the woman who is afraid of her abusive partner, like this woman…
Decrease magazine capacity. Ok, I’m on board to a degree, but to what arbitrary number? I’ve already stated before, someone can easily bring a backpack full of reloads and it only takes a second or two if you know what you’re doing. What’s an effective number to lower it to? 10? School shooter in a classroom can easily fire 20 shots from two handguns in under a minute. 5? 3? Are you gonna go so low that someone in a self defense scenario just gets one crack at taking out an assailant? What’s the magic number?
Age limit? Again, what’s the magic number? And is it age limits on all guns our just the vaguely described “assault rifles?” Cause if it’s not handguns, a potential school shooter can still buy 3 or 4 handguns and a bunch of 10 rd magazines and do a bunch of damage. And if it’s all guns, you’re now preventing the 20 yr old female sophomore who lives by herself in her apartment from having a right to self protection. Also, how many of these school shooters have gotten guns from family members?
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything, but we can’t just say everyone knows what to do, duh, it’s so obvious, just do it. You have to have solid logic for what your prescribing. Instead it’s just, “guns are evil, so we need common sense” reforms. And that’s where the thought process ends.
And more so, when the prevailing thought on the left is that it’s SO OBVIOUS what needs to be done, when anyone questions why would we should impose a certain restriction, they are met with scorn and told they don’t care about dead kids cause in the anti-gun crowds minds, there’s no question about what needs to be done. It’s short sighted, simplistic thinking that sows division, when if approached with a different mindset, perhaps some common ground could be achieved.
Literally all these things may help prevent lives from being lost, and yes some numbers are arbitrary but so aren’t many things in life. Just because you can’t definitively prove these things will stop mass shootings, they would be a step in the right direction, and they don’t infringe on any one person buying and responsibly owning a gun.
Wait time should be at least a month or two to buy a gun, with background check, safety training, and minimum age of at least 21 yo. Magazine size should be small, time reloading gives people time to react. There should be charges if your gun is not locked up or stored responsibly. There should be the ability of law enforcement to seize a gun if any threat to others is suspected.
Literally all these things may help prevent lives from being lost, and yes some numbers are arbitrary but so aren’t many things in life. Just because you can’t definitively prove these things will stop mass shootings, they would be a step in the right direction, and they don’t infringe on any one person buying and responsibly owning a gun.
Wait time should be at least a month or two to buy a gun, with background check, safety training, and minimum age of at least 21 yo. Magazine size should be small, time reloading gives people time to react. There should be charges if your gun is not locked up or stored responsibly. There should be the ability of law enforcement to seize a gun if any threat to others is suspected.
You didn't really answer any of the questions I had... But you literally preceded your wait time prescription with a statement that you immediately invalidated.
What about the woman (or man) that needs a gun more quickly for self defense? Did you read the article I posted about the lady who was murdered while waiting for a gun for self-protection??? How is that person not being infringed upon by a month or two wait? So yeah, I don't really want arbitrary numbers. If you can't prove that X amount of wait period is helpful, then why would we do it at the detriment of the people like that lady in the article? You can say by pure logic that yeah, maybe you shouldn't be able to buy a gun with zero wait to help avoid some crimes of passion/anger/drunkenness, but if you can arbitrarily say 2 months, why not 2 years? If I say two days and you want two months, you should have a some solid reasoning for it other than "some numbers are (just) arbitrary."
You didn't really answer any of the questions I had... But you literally preceded your wait time prescription with a statement that you immediately invalidated.
What about the woman (or man) that needs a gun more quickly for self defense? Did you read the article I posted about the lady who was murdered while waiting for a gun for self-protection??? How is that person not being infringed upon by a month or two wait? So yeah, I don't really want arbitrary numbers. If you can't prove that X amount of wait period is helpful, then why would we do it at the detriment of the people like that lady in the article? You can say by pure logic that yeah, maybe you shouldn't be able to buy a gun with zero wait to help avoid some crimes of passion/anger/drunkenness, but if you can arbitrarily say 2 months, why not 2 years? If I say two days and you want two months, you should have a some solid reasoning for it other than "some numbers are (just) arbitrary."
The number is arbitrary. It could be whatever amount of days psychologists believe it takes for an acutely angry or disgruntled person to cool off, that way perhaps it would feel less arbitrary for you. Somehow I think anything I say will be unacceptable with your line of reasoning though.
www.texastribune.org
